Lonza-gz.com

The timeline behind lonza-gz.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Lonza Ltd. v. 聂任飞 Case No. D2024-4923 1. The Parties The Complainant is Lonza Ltd., Switzerland, represented by Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., United States of America (“US”). The Respondent is 聂任飞, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <lonza-gz.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 27, 2024. On November 28, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 28, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 3, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on December 3, 2024. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 16, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 5, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 9, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on January 20, 2025. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant, part of Lonza Group Ltd, is a company providing manufacturing services to the pharmaceutical, biotech and nutrition markets. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for LONZA around the world, such as but not limited to: Trademark Jurisdiction Registration Number Registration Date LONZA China 70083 May 20, 2002 LONZA European Union 001101898 July 3, 2000 LONZA Japan 3157933 September 30, 1992 Within the US, The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations: Trademark Registration Number Registration Date LONZA 956,300 April 3, 1973 LONZA 4,483,125 February 18, 2014 LONZA (stylized) 4,639,815 November 18, 2014 LONZA 4,922,144 March 22, 2016 LONZA (stylized) 5,222,498 June 13, 2017 These trademark registrations relate to a wide variety of Trademark Classes, covering various goods and services. The Respondent is an individual based in China. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 29, 2024. At the time the Complaint was filed the disputed domain name resolved to a gambling website. At the time of this Decision, it redirected to a page promoting various services including gambling services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant and contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant must satisfy all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed in its Complaint: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. Although the addition of the term “-gz”, and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 1.8. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. The Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. page 4 First, the registrations by the Complainant of the trademark LONZA constitute prima facie evidence of the Complainant’s rights to these trademarks. The Respondent is neither sponsored, affiliated, licensed nor authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in the disputed domain name. Second, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which suggests a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Third, the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name on October 29, 2024, came significantly after the Complainant’s registration of its trademarks. Prior to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s trademarks had enjoyed a high degree of fame and reputation which the Respondent was not authorized to share. In any event, the Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. WIPO Overview 3.0 , Section 2.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. As stated above, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered long after the Complainant’s registration of the trademarks, and the Complainant had been marketing and selling its goods and services using these trademarks well before the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its rights in the marks. As such, bad faith can be reasonably inferred. Further, the redirection of the disputed domain name to a site promoting gambling is evidence the disputed domain name has been registered to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the services provided and hence shows bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <lonza-gz.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Douglas Clark/ Douglas Clark Sole Panelist Date: February 10, 2025

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.